The DJI Shadow? Unbranded Drones Mirror a Blacklisted Giant

A new class of drones is quietly entering the U.S. market. They are not made by DJI—or at least, they don’t claim to be. On paper, they appear to be the products of obscure manufacturers in Hong Kong and mainland China. In reality, they look, behave, and perform almost identically to DJI’s best-known models.

These drones, marketed under names like Specta and Skyrover, are gaining FCC approvals, shipping through U.S. customs, and reaching consumers despite federal restrictions on DJI and growing scrutiny of Chinese drone technology. The surface branding is different. The hardware and software beneath that branding tells a more complicated story.

U.S. Customs Delays Target DJI Branded Products

In early 2024, the U.S. government expanded enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which prohibits the import of goods linked to forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region. DJI—already listed on multiple U.S. blacklists—began seeing its products flagged and delayed by Customs and Border Protection at key ports of entry. Though the company denied any manufacturing presence in Xinjiang, drone shipments were held in places like Louisville and Los Angeles for secondary review, some for weeks.

“We are actively engaging with the agency to provide documentation that demonstrates our products are not manufactured with forced labor,” said Adam Welsh, DJI’s global head of policy. “There is no justification for CBP to detain DJI’s drones.”

For commercial operators and consumers, the effects have been tangible. Multiple drone retailers and logistics firms reported increasing hold times or unexplained denials. Eric Thurber, a licensed pilot based in Arizona, said his replacement drone was stuck in customs for over ten days. “No updates. No transparency. I’m out the money and the drone,” he said.

At the same time, technically similar drones—some indistinguishable in form and function—were making it through customs under alternate names.

Specta and Skyrover Raise Technical Red Flags

One of those names is Specta. The Specta Mini is a compact, foldable quadcopter that bears a striking resemblance to DJI’s Mini 3. It uses the same gimbal design, folding arm structure, and downward vision sensors. It’s registered with the FCC under ID 2BCHV-TQFDUB1 by Cogito Tech Company Limited, a Hong Kong-registered firm with no consumer support presence or product ecosystem. Its manuals are hosted on a generic server with no branding. Its app, required to unlock most features, links back to CogitoTech.com’s privacy policy but offers no support or company background.

The Skyrover X1 is not an independent drone platform, but rather a modified derivative of DJI’s Mini 3 Pro. Based on confirmed app behavior, vertical gimbal rotation, intelligent flight features such as ActiveTrack and hyperlapse, and compatibility with the DJI RC-N1 controller using OcuSync 2.0, the Skyrover X1 mirrors the Mini 3 Pro’s architecture and capabilities. While it lacks official DJI branding and is marketed under a separate name, the drone connects to DJI’s FlySafe servers and leverages DJI’s firmware environment. The hardware shows visual and behavioral parity with DJI systems, indicating that the Skyrover is a repackaged and potentially unauthorized variant of the Mini 3 Pro, distributed through shell companies for unregulated retail in Western markets.

Technical analysis from independent security researchers has shown that drones like the Skyrover X1 and Specta Mini establish communication with DJI’s FlySafe servers—the backend used to push no-fly zones and geofencing data to DJI drones. In a public statement on X, cyber security analyst d0tslash confirmed: “They all call home to the same DJI endpoint.” This strongly suggests that these drones either integrate DJI’s backend deliberately or inherit it through reused firmware environments, SDKs, or unlicensed cloning.

FCC filings reveal further overlap. The internal photographs of the Specta Mini show circuit board layouts and antenna designs consistent with DJI’s Mini 2 and Mini 3 architecture. The gimbal pitch motor housing is nearly identical. Battery orientation, power distribution pathways, and sensor stack placement match. Specta’s app interface uses terms like “Material Transfer,” mimicking DJI’s QuickTransfer wireless file system. The language differs, but the logic, structure, and Bluetooth/Wi-Fi handshake protocols are nearly identical.

Skyrover’s technical documentation is similarly vague. Its user manual describes intelligent flight modes, waypoint mapping, and obstacle sensing behaviors not typically found in budget drones. Video walkthroughs posted by early buyers show DJI-style UI overlays and gimbal yaw performance with minimal deviation. This is not a case of generic resemblance—it’s technical replication.

Reverse-engineer Konrad Iturbe, who has previously analyzed DJI firmware, noted that the Specta Mini and similar unbranded drones use “secneo packing”—a software obfuscation and encryption method associated with DJI’s firmware packaging tools. In a July 2025 post, Iturbe observed that Specta’s internal file structure and naming conventions mirror those used by Cogito-linked devices and legacy DJI drones. “We got two new DJI shells in the arena,” he wrote on X, identifying patterns from firmware identifiers. This strengthens the case for a shared firmware toolchain or derivative codebase, even if no direct link is acknowledged by DJI or these brands.

Lawmakers Seek Answers, But the Path Remains Murky

Neither Cogito Tech Company Limited nor any entity behind Skyrover has acknowledged a relationship with DJI. DJI has not responded to requests for comment regarding the Specta or Skyrover platforms. They are not overt subsidiaries of DJI. There is no public record of ownership or financial ties between DJI and the manufacturers behind these platforms. No entity involved has confirmed any formal partnership with DJI. But the functional fingerprint is hard to ignore.

In August 2024, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party submitted a letter to the Department of Commerce urging an investigation into Cogito Tech and Anzu Robotics. The committee raised concerns that these firms may be acting as DJI proxies—“cut-outs,” in the language of the report—created to evade U.S. policy restrictions and maintain DJI’s foothold in the commercial market through shadow branding.

Some industry analysts suggest that DJI’s software and hardware designs may be finding their way into other companies’ products through either formal licensing agreements or unauthorized cloning. Given the complexity and decentralization of DJI’s supply chain in Shenzhen—where multiple third-party factories and suppliers handle component production—it is plausible that former contractors or OEM partners could replicate DJI’s systems with little oversight. No evidence has been presented to confirm that DJI has sanctioned this activity. However, the similarities in firmware behavior, app infrastructure, and physical design across multiple platforms point to a shared technological origin that warrants further investigation.

The loophole is regulatory. The FCC certifies drones only for spectrum and RF compliance—not firmware, not cloud dependencies, not flight behavior. That means a clone drone can clear the U.S. regulatory process so long as it meets wireless standards and avoids trademarked labels. There is no system in place to verify whether a drone’s logic or software originated inside DJI’s development environment.

This presents an enormous gap. While U.S. Customs holds up DJI-branded shipments, nearly identical systems are reentering the U.S. through side doors—with unfamiliar names but highly familiar behaviors.

The Zero Lux reviewed the full Specta Mini FCC filing. The companion test reports were submitted by TCBs (Telecommunication Certification Bodies) in Asia, while internal photos showed flight boards with no identifying marks aside from board rev numbers. The listed company, Cogito Tech Company Limited, offers no support center or distribution partner in the U.S. There is no way to know who programmed the firmware, who maintains the app, or whether any of it is secure.

Skyrover’s website contains no contact page, no licensing info, and no forward-facing ownership. Its PDFs are hosted on a server labeled only "uavflightserver.com.” In many ways, both Specta and Skyrover resemble white-label shells—technical carriers of DJI IP in disguise.

Whether through proxy branding, software licensing, or unauthorized cloning, the technologies behind these drones continue to surface in U.S. The regulatory focus on surface-level compliance—branding, frequency, and emissions—has not yet accounted for code provenance, backend behavior, or manufacturing lineage. Until enforcement mechanisms evolve to assess the full technological fingerprint of each system, platforms functionally built on DJI architecture may continue to enter the market under different names.

A public review of the Skyrover X1 is available on the YouTube channel Air Photography, which regularly features product breakdowns and tutorials for GoPro and DJI drones. The channel’s creator shares weekly content aimed at helping users get the most out of consumer camera gear—offering a look at how drones like the X1 are received and interpreted by the broader enthusiast community.

As part of this investigation, The Zero Lux reached out to DJI’s U.S. Media Relations for comment. Email tracking confirms the message was opened, but as of publication, no reply has been received.

THE ZERO LUX is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.